This thread is for Discussion of Capitalism, Libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Minarchism, and the PHYSICAL REMOVAL of COMMUNIST FAGS from our board of peace. Reminder that this is the Libertarian RIGHT General. Aleppo Johnson-fags, Left-Libertarians, and other Shit-Libs need to fuck off. Voice your complaints to r/libertarian.
>Recommended Reading list
libertarianright.org
>Vanilla /lrg/ pastebin- CREATE IF YOU DONT SEE ONE IN THE CATALOG
pastebin.com
>Bump for Life, Liberty, and Private Death Squads
/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL - THE LEFT IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO SOVEREIGNTY
Jaxson Gonzalez
Other urls found in this thread:
liberalstudies.ca
mises.org
il-rs.org.br
iea.org.uk
mises.org
lewrockwell.com
mises.org
mises.org
riosmauricio.com
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
archive.lewrockwell.com
archive.lewrockwell.com
lewrockwell.com
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Justin Moore
CORE READING:
>The Law – Frédéric Bastiat
liberalstudies.ca
>Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
mises.org
>Free To Choose – Milton and Rose Friedman
il-rs.org.br
>Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty – Eugene F. Miller
iea.org.uk
>Liberty or Equality – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
mises.org
Hudson Peterson
HOPPE READING LIST:
>Articles by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
lewrockwell.com
>The Economics and Ethics of Private Property
mises.org
>A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline
mises.org
>Democracy – The God That Failed
riosmauricio.com
>A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
mises.org
>From Aristocracy, to Monarchy, to Democracy
mises.org
>The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production
mises.org
>The Private Production of Defense
mises.org
>Economic Science and the Austrian Method
mises.org
>What Must Be Done
mises.org
Brandon Jenkins
ROTHBARD READING LIST:
>Big-Government Libertarians
archive.lewrockwell.com
>Race! That Murray Book
archive.lewrockwell.com
>More on LewRockwell.com
lewrockwell.com
Books:
>Man, Economy, and State with Power & Market
mises.org
>Anatomy of the State
mises.org
>Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays
mises.org
>The Ethics of Liberty
mises.org
>What Has Government Done to Our Money?
mises.org
>America’s Great Depression
mises.org
>For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
mises.org
Brayden Jenkins
MISES READING LIST:
>The Mises Reader Unabridged
mises.org
>The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality
mises.org
>Marxism Unmasked
mises.org
>Profit and Loss
mises.org
>Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
mises.org
>Human Action
mises.org
>Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War
mises.org
>Bureaucracy
mises.org
>Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition
mises.org
Aiden Adams
To pursue the end of private property is to violate the terms of non-aggression.
Please understand this or GTFO.
William Carter
...
Jonathan Johnson
...
Angel Adams
I'm down, fuck commies!
Grayson Martinez
...
Dominic Harris
Bump.
Logan Bailey
Do we really have to include ancaps?
Henry Flores
yeah, but just bully the redditor ancaps, taxation is theft memers and so on. Anarcho-Capitalism is fine. Hoppe is based.
pic related.
Carson Ramirez
it's funny when commies try to use "muh NAP" as an argument as to why they should not be removed from society
commies gave up any right they had the moment they decided to embrace the most statist economically absurd anti-western ideology in the history of mankind
Oliver Gomez
Communists most disgusting deceptive peices of shit there are. there can be no tolerance for their faggotry.
Ethan Lewis
...
Camden Johnson
>Libertarians are cucks !!!!
>I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself. -Alexis de Tocqueville
How can statists ever recover ?
John Perry
"Tocqueville saw democracy as an equation that balanced liberty and equality"
Noah Cooper
Some commies getting removed.
youtube.com
Jaxson Price
you can't be always right
he is from the 19th century,surely he never saw a socialist party in power
Jack Wood
>libertarian
>idolizing a man in your logo
Please kill yourselfn
Connor Mitchell
yeah he looks like an alright guy.
I have many logos. have another one.
Jack Baker
...
Kevin Rogers
Minarchism is the white man's ideology.
The idea of limited government has it's root back in Ancient Greece and Rome (viz a viz. Republicanism). It was later refined by the British and Anglo-Americans. Only to later be developed further by Germans.
National Socialism is rooted in economic illiteracy and is merely an excuse to subjugate other white's as slaves in name of ethnic nationalism.
The idea you need to bloated government to keep a country white is blatantly absurd. It was through the expanse of the state that the Left has hijacked Western civilization, and it's by rolling back the scope of government that we can hope to fight back.
Asher Richardson
bump cuz fuck commies
Carson Hernandez
If I was fuhrer I'd run it as a minarchy, but im skeptical of "limited goverment." My country has a constitution that is supposed to limit goverment, but the goverment just says "its okay 30 round mags/assault weapons aren't protected under the constitution" and we get fucked anyway.
Austin Lewis
Monarchy would be better than a dictatorship IMO. America is the way it is now because it's abandoned it's Christian heritage and has been under attack from many rogue elements. Ultimately we should model government after the Bible our goal should be set on winning people to Christ.
Alexander Davis
What does Elton John have to do with the libertarian right?
Jackson Ortiz
by putting moral people in charge but not by forcing morality right ?
Evan Hill
...
Robert James
I do not understand what you are asking
Eli Davis
wut ?
William Bennett
It was a Washington quote reference
James Morales
Shouldn't we have separate threads for right libertarianism and anarcho capitalism? It's not that I don't like the ancap ideology but I think there should be a place for discussion of the Tea Party or UKIP or how bad the US Libertarian party is and etc, and these threads are always filled with questions and discussions about anarchism. I get that we want more activity by merging threads but there's not a lot of talk about libertarianism in the current democratic system.
Noah Howard
Look at them Huginn, look at them and laugh.
Asher Ortiz
No. Right libertarianism encompasses minarchism (state should provide defense, courts and police) and anarcho-capitalism. It is also conservative and based off Christian morality. You have communes where gays, communists and socialists are not allowed.
Ryan Walker
Reminder that libertarians are cucks who voted for Fillon instead of Le Pen.
Angel Nguyen
Is Macron /ourguy/?
Angel Flores
not our fault
non-libertarian always think about ancapism and ignore the rest
even if we split /lrg/ would still be full of starwman questions like "XDDDDD I control the world monopoly debate me ancaps" the hivemind is real
>can't last 12 years
>thinks he is the smug one here
Kevin Morales
Talk about current events. no one is stopping you.
Noah Flores
I have a question for the anarchists.
In anarcho-capitalism we would have communes where people live and work. What if certain communes were run by Muslims and they imposed Shari'a law? What if someone enters into their commune and violates a law that requires the death penalty, but say that person belongs to a commune where the crime isn't a capital offense. The response would be that the DRO would take the issue to a third party court/firm but what if the Muslims are adamant about punishing the person.
Michael Bell
Fillon isn't libertarian
>EU cuck
>/ourguy/
nope
Owen Kelly
>pushing the Shylock view of money
Nolan Robinson
>Be me
>College student
>Find out the Socialist Equality Party is preaching on campus
>run Shitlord.exe
>Go find the SEP
>Pretend to be interested in their beliefs
>run showyourprocess.exe
>Socialist bitch starts yackin
>Tells me they're gonna organize a worker's revolution
>Says they'll then convince all the workers to tell the elite they won't fight their wars for them anymore
>I say interesting, what next?
>She starts talkin in circles
>Smug ass look on my face
>Finally burst out laughing
>Tell them taxation is theft and their ideology killed 100,000,000+/- people
>successful russling of the jimmies
William Cox
he entered a muslim filled commune,if the owners are muslim salafists then he has a right to impose shar'ia on his property
also I don't think people with a triple digits IQ would join this group while being a transracial gay tranny
Kevin Howard
It's a problem with libertarianism. If a politician says "muh free market" then immediately nearly every libertarian creams their underwear and starts supporting him, no matter if he supports the European Union, globalism, open borders (which would increase welfare spending and thus the state)...
I'm ancap and I rooted for Farage, Trump, Wilders and now LePen. The State won't collapse in our lifetime, so we might as well keep it the hell away from socialists and socdems.
Joshua Johnson
I doubt a violent muslim covenant could form without legitimately, without aggression. they'd get the chopper in the forming of ancapistan.
Do as jews do not as jew say.
>The State won't collapse in our lifetime, so we might as well keep it the hell away from socialists and socdems.
i agree.
Charles Sanders
could form legitimately*
Aaron Baker
how can someone be in favor of free-market and at the same time be pro-EU when his parliament is the DEFINITION of crony capitalism
I never understand these idiots
Luis Lee
>The State won't collapse in our lifetime
The only way the state would ever fully collapse is if humans completely disappeared. As long as you have large numbers of humans living in close proximity to each other, government of some sort will exist.
Jackson Gutierrez
> I doubt a violent muslim covenant could form without legitimately, without aggression. they'd get the chopper in the forming of ancapistan.
Why do suppose that? What if Muslim bought up property and sold it to other Muslims and enforced Shari'a law on their own territory. Would you have a problem with this? Why couldn't such a covenant exist.
Samuel Butler
the problem is that Muslims are by definition invasive so very few of these communes would exist peacefuuly
Easton Brooks
Why doesn't /lrg/ ever talk about actual libertarian right politicians?
James Wright
So what? If other Muslims consent to live by those "invasive" laws why would that be a problem?
John Roberts
Because they're not exactly libertarians. They're just regular social democrats (what modern americans would call Liberals) that are just a bit more in favor of not a truly free market, but big corporations and crony capitalism.
Many of them support laws against racism, open borders, all this leftist crap. A true libertarian would never entirely support the violation of property rights such as those. A libertarian would also never support a government, so it would NEVER support a government of governments such as the EU.
Nathan Ortiz
It could be two different clearly marked threads. There could even be a different name for the libertarian one and LRG can stay with the ancaps since it's traditionally an anarchist thread. I don't know.
I might try making one. /1776/ general or something, and seeing how it does. I feel like ancapistan has a better chance of existing if we focus on a few of the channels that are available right now politically.
Isaiah Morris
>What if certain communes were run by Muslims and they imposed Shari'a law?
They could only apply Sharia to the people that voluntarily submitted to them and lived on the covenant.
There most likely would be provisions between insurers when a person of one faith comes into conflict with a person of another faith. If the Muslim was really adamant about punishing the person, the companies would really, really have to strive toward making him back down, otherwise they'd lose funds from people who didn't like them losing a case to a sandnigger.
Samuel Barnes
invasive on non-muslims
it doesn't exist in france,we only have conservatives who nevr pass their laws because "muh strikes" and social-traitors they are corporate cronyist who impose leftists policies (Macron is a pure social-traitor)
Benjamin Bell
Hoppe will be in Malta this July, organized by a libertarian right association, I'm going for sure.
Parker Gray
I would imagine that most firms would back out, Given that he entered their commune knowing full well the reprecussions.
Matthew Walker
not that it isn't theorectically possible for them to gain property without violent force, but historically they have proven themselves incapable of being civil. terrorist attacks on non-muslim countries and so on.
just talk about current politics, im an ancap and would love to talk some real strategy and real people to support.
Cameron Sullivan
Itt:Autism and larping
Adrian Hall
> not that it isn't theorectically possible for them to gain property without violent force, but historically they have proven themselves incapable of being civil. terrorist attacks on non-muslim countries and so on.
Muslims in Australia have bought out suburbs and only sold it to themselves?
So in the hypothetical it would seem that it would be fair to allow the commune to punish that individual.
You seem to be fumbling.
Easton Cox
Yeah, I'm sure companies would tell their customers not to go to those places just as travel agencies recommend not going to terrorist-controlled places. Or they would not include Muslim communes in their "covered" area.
Really?! I'm jelly kek What's the name of the event? Record that shit man. And ask him if he knows about his internet fandom. Imagine if he himself saw the videos we make of him kek.
Xavier Stewart
So would communes in an ancap society just be fenced off cities?
Nathan Moore
The convo on muslims brings up an interesting question; should it be an unspoken rule that the free market be inclusive to all customers?
Connor Allen
Pretty much, yes. Not to say they'd be in permanent war with each other (war raises premium costs and defense costs) but covenants would be specifically formed by many volunteers to protect and foster a certain lifestyle.
Colton Bell
depends if they discriminate X or not
Michael Murphy
It's usually inclusive to people who respect private property and don't steal/cause ruckuses.
Chase Hall
So could a certain Christian commune disallow blasphemous forms of expression and punish it? Say some atheist who made blasphemous remarks towards the Christian God ends up in a Christian commune and the commune kills him what would ensue?
Ian Jones
So in that case, it comes down to simply weeding out those who violate the NAP?
Wyatt Wilson
Feels to me like what we're slowly coming to the conclusion of is that most religions that have come from the Middle East inherently seem to cause violence
Chase Moore
inclusive to those who respect private property. I'm not gonna sell food/weapons/property to radical kebabs.
yes, you must not tolerate uncivil people in a civil libertarian order, such as communists or terrorists.
Josiah Gonzalez
Entrepreneurs would tend to want the greatest amount of customers possible, so while there would certainly be many cases of christian bakers denying cakes to gay couples, but in general the free market would try to be as inclusive as possible because that's profitable. It would however tend to segregate those who hurt the entrepreneur's property; for example, you wouldn't rent your house to a bunch of violent criminals who would destroy your property.
Austin James
>couples, in general
No "but" there. Autofix'd.
Liam Smith
Corax conference 2017, with kokesh, Brendan O'Neill and Julie borowski
Brody Carter
Killing someone who has not killed anyone is a perversion of law since the punishment grossly overshadows the crime (and is even worse); it would therefore not be very popular among people or insurance agencies, not even in religious communes. People wouldn't want to submit themselves to a death penalty too just so another person also submitted himself.
More or less, yes, with further discrimination only occurring whenever the two parties have conflicts of interests (think gay couples and bakeries, since that's a popular one).
Noah Smith
This is a difficult question if we ignore how he got there in the first place. It depends on whither basic human rights are globally enforced or not, which I could see as possibly being a necessity.
Ryan Smith
like in a terms of conditions,the owner should beware that his communes is "for those who follow the right path of Christ only",if it's the case he can kill the atheist,but in a practical way,he would deport him so there won't be the "recreational nuke :DDDD" scenario
Justin Collins
>you wouldn't rent your house to a bunch of violent criminals who would destroy your property.
ie niggers
Jacob Anderson
Well, I think we need to try to get some kind of Tea Party support going even though it's 2017 now and everyone has forgotten about that. That's partly why I suggested a new thread, to see how popular they are and to get all the support in one place. It's a decentralized movement that I feel aligns well with LRG, it makes perfect sense for pol to support it. We've already seen in the last year how much internet support and memes can grow a movement.
Wyatt Perez
Noice. great job Maltabro, make sure you bring your Democracy and have Hoppe sign it.
Logan Torres
But now we're getting into a discussion of morals when it comes to discussing the death penalty for crimes that did not involve the death of someone. For example, I personally have no problem personally executing a child rapist with a 20+ victim count, even though all of his victims survived. How do we determine the concept of a just execution when the dictations of the NAP are strictly adherent to "eye for an eye" execution practices? In other words, who do we account determine if someone deserves to die for their crimes even if they didn't kill someone?
Nathan Ross
I think society should be governed by biblical law. Old Testament law specifically. However biblical law and Shari'a law are opposed to each other. Biblical law is clear cut and to the point with not much fluff. It's opposed to tyranny and statism. Shari'a is intrusive.
> Killing someone who has not killed anyone is a perversion of law since the punishment grossly overshadows the crime (and is even worse); it would therefore not be very popular among people or insurance agencies, not even in religious communes. People wouldn't want to submit themselves to a death penalty too just so another person also submitted himself.
I would disagree justice is what God defines it to be.
I don't know but I would be for enforcing such laws on people within my commune.
I think Julie is better than say "libertarians" like Lauren Southern, I don't think she's done much besides run a YT channel.
Gavin Phillips
I've heard a bit about the tea party having some kind of comeback, but is that really all we have? Don't we have some other active movements?
Joseph Williams
>Wants biblical law
>Sharia is intrusive, but biblical isn't
>Forgets that a huge part of old testament biblical law involves huge and gross violations of the NAP
>Also forgets Separation of church and state
Bruh, are you sure you belong on a Libertarian thread?
Grayson Carter
Rothbard precisely calls it the "eye for an eye" redistributive justice theory. The rapist couldn't be murdered, but he could suffer rough beatings from the victim/victim's parents/representatives as well as a few broken bones and what-not. Not to say I'd have a problem with killing a child rapist myself, but from what I've read so far it seems that all crimes require proportional punishment. Only murder could render the criminal completely devoid of his self-ownership and thus become a permanent slave to his victim's representatives.
Alright, that's fair, but you'd still have to most likely have contingency plans for dealing with atheists/people of other religions if they happened to commit a serious crime on your property. Most likely your insurance agencies would sort it out, lest there'd be an enormous scandal that affected dozens of lives.
Mason James
I am economically libertarian. I believe the government (as I stated above) should only run the courts, police and defense.
The difference is what laws I would enforce compared to a libertarian.
The NAP is worthless. It can't be defended philosophically. Atheism is morally bankrupt. Man has value because he is in God's image.
Asher Parker
Suppose you've stole $100 from OP. You have subtracted the right that OP had to his thousand bucks. The NAP stipulates that you would have to give back his money plus some interest; that covers for the cost of opportunity he lost, inflation during the period, the cost for recovering his money and so on.
Now let's take a murderer as an example. When they decided to murder another individual, they have subtracted that individual's right to life. No amount of reparation he can pay, no amount of work they can possibly do will bring back the deceased. The only equal reparation would be the murderer's death.
I'm not sure how it would work for very severe crimes (such as a child rapist with 20+ victim count), but you can be assured that he will not have an easy life in no way.
Elijah Evans
A proportional punishment in the case of rape would involve raping the rapist or, if he has children, raping them. Not to mention, it's an inherent truth that rapists will inevitably commit the same crime again. That's just a biological fact; If they don't act upon their urges, all they'll do is sit and fantasize, and little to know scientific evidence has rendered any conclusion that child rapists are in fact capable of rehabilitation.
Wyatt Ramirez
>very severe crimes without any objective deaths
Fixed again. God, I'm slow today.
Mason Parker
That's fucking sweet.
Henry Lee
>A proportional punishment in the case of rape would involve raping the rapist
this would be ok
>or, if he has children, raping them
this would not be ok, Jesus Christ
But why are we even discussing this if we all know rapists would be denied entrance almost everywhere and be shunned by almost everyone? Even in prison child rapists usually get beatings or the rope, and we already live in degenerate times.
Caleb Nguyen
The Libertarian Party? But they're reddit tier, it's better to support Tea Party Republicans. The Libertarians and Greens showed why third parties don't work here, it's better to change an existing party from the inside, which Trump was already able to do.
Luis Long
>The NAP is worthless. It can't be defended philosophically.
>Forgets that Old Testament law is littered with laws that cannot be philosophically, morally, legally, or practically defended.
Riiiight, here's a question for ya, buddy. How do you attest for people like me who are pagan and don't want biblical law? You can't. Law must and always should be kept completely and 100% secular in all shapes and forms.
Asher Morales
Here's an interesting prospect:
Should a person commit a murder, and everyone is quite certain that they committed it, but does not have irrefutable proof, what would need to be done as punishment? Clearly it would be morally objectionable to execute someone who could be innocent, but in the absence of other suspects the person is considered guilty and must be punished. What would be an alternative punishment for a probable murder?
Tyler Bell
Something like this would never happen in an ancap society. One person would own the entire river and nobody else would be allowed in.
Robert Perez
Sorry about that, I forgot to include that I was talking about a child rapist. But even still, that's my point; there are plenty of cases where the "eye for an eye" system doesn't work because it lacks any ability to abide social morality and exert moral superiority over an aggressor. Even if a child rapist was subject to this law, why would anyone want to do that to him or his children (should he have any)? The answer is, no one would except for people like him. To prevent his inevitable repeating of his crimes, I argue the only logical punishment is death